Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-12/History of ancient Israel and Judah

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Authors of the Bible
Status	New
Request date	04:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	RomanHistorian (talk)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab new cases|Authors of the Bible]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Authors of the Bible]]

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Authors of the Bible.

Who is involved?

• User:PiCo
• User:Dylan Flaherty
• User:RomanHistorian
• User:Hardyplants
• User:John_J._Bulten

What is the dispute?

I have changed what I saw as a one-sided view using two good sources ([1] and [2]), and (mainly) PiCO and Dylan Flaherty keep reverting my changes. They are reverting it to a version that includes very few sources, and keep attacking my sources as "fringe" even though they have so few sources themselves. I have asked Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bible and I have one response so far, who says the sources are reliable. I keep telling these people I am open to compromise, and have changed my version of the page in several ways to make it more appealing to people who disagree, only to have my edits reverted back. At first, I deleted a large part of the article (mostly the uncited claims) and replaced it with what my sources reported on the matter. That was reverted, so I kept everything that was there before and just added my changes as a fourth column, only to have them reverted back also. These people are unwilling to compromise at all, and instead just keep telling me I am fringe and have extreme views. I obviously can't compromise with them. I also noticed that some people had commented earlier on the discussion page with similar complaints as I have now, only to have their complaints ignored and their changes reverted. I think I am doing everything in accordance with Wikipedia policy and am having my work undone simply because a few people think I am 'extreme'.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?

I think people are talking past each other, although I feel as though these people are unwilling to compromise and don't even see legitimacy in my position.

How do you think we can help?

Verify if the sources I am using are legitimate and the changes I made are legitimate in accordance with Wikipedia's rules.

Discussion

• I'm surprised that I wasn't notified of this case, but now that I stumbled upon it, I'm curious about what I can do to help. Please let me know. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also wasn't informed - and I'm supposed to be one of the parties! Anyway, let's now proceed on the basis of faith in each other's good intentions. PiCo (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC) (Later note: Having checked out the plaintiff's sources, I'd say they're reliable - academics in good standing. But that's not enough in itself - we need to reflect mainstream scholarly opinion, and these sources aren't mainstream. That's the problem - they're academically respectable, but not mainstream. The question isn't one of reliability, but of due weight. PiCo (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I'd say they're a reliable source for the fringe conservative Protestant view, but not of the mainstream view. As you said, we shouldn't be giving non-mainstream views undue weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense. They are reliable and yet fringe? Isn't that a contradiction?RomanHistorian (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't use the word "fringe". Well, I might in a moment of passion, but in my normal voice I'd call them non-mainstream. The problem, of course, is deciding what's mainstream. For that I'd go to tertiary books (bible encyclopedias, etc) from well-known academic sources. I'd accept things like the Mercer, Eerdmans, Oxford, Anchor. Others too - that's just four to start with. (By the way, Mercer is an evangelical bible college, quite conservative, so I'm not biased against the conservative point of view). PiCo (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope request

The mediator should also determine whether this case should also include four additional articles listed below, and whether User:Dougweller and I should be added as parties. Background: on 21 Sep I noted a reasonable sourced edit by RomanHistorian to Joshua being undone by Dougweller, namely, reverted wholesale without regard to parts not objected to by Dougweller (i.e., the Islamic view). When I expanded on RomanHistorian's edit, PiCo stepped in with a number of poorly formatted sources copied from another article. Actual verifiability was even poorer. I read all these sources to determine if they actually said what PiCo claimed (even whole sections when cited to support a point that should have been specified by single page number), and found one of the poorest cases of verification failure I've ever seen, which I first documented point by point in the subsequent edit histories. Naturally in those edits I rephrased according to sources and thought I had achieved stability. At that article I was reverted by Doug twice, PiCo, and Dylan, but usually without separating the reverter's concerns from other reverted improvements, and usually without citation of real flaws in my language (some improvements were recommended by PiCo and enfolded). I also carried the source corrections to the other articles identified as having this crib text: Book of Joshua, History of Israel, and History of ancient Israel and Judah and faced similar uncritical and unsupported reverts. While I perceive this as ordinary editing process, PiCo apparently does not and is considering RFC. In short, my experience precisely follows RomanHistorian's, except that the sources were provided by PiCo rather than me, and are not attacked per se but for what I gloss them as saying as opposed to what PiCo synthesizes them as saying. (Yes, I think PiCo's reading is much more synthesis than mine is.) Having discoved this case, I believed it necessary to mention these details in relation to it, e.g., in case such an RFC would duplicate issues and should be cross-linked or merged. JJB 07:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that these should stay separate. Authors of the Bible is undergoing an AfD and I suspect that although it almost certainly will be kept that it will change considerably. The dispute at the other articles is basically about sources and what they say, which is why I think an RfC is more appropriate. It isn't even very much about the general thrust of the articles so far as I can see. I don't see mediation as resolving whether a source backs x statement or y statement. We just need a bit more input from editors with access to the sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I must add that I've now gotten cold-reverted 13 times on three of these articles in a week by this troika of editors, even though I'm pointing out the errors in the text and they aren't. It is very tiring to do the work time and again and get cold-reverted repeatedly, as I'm sure RomanHistorian would agree. I must request assistance in how to remove egregious verification failures that are defended by wagon-circling, hand-waving, and inaction, and I really don't know that a mediator will be by here anytime soon. JJB 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely obnoxious. I have had a good number of one-word edits (see Book of Genesis, Book of Exodus, and Book of Deuteronomy) on many different articles reverted because these one-word edits were considered 'fringe'. I even get edits that make things neutral (like modifying one claim that the Gospel of John was a forgery to make it clear this isn't the view of all scholars) reverted because apparently everything I do, by definition, is 'fringe'. You even see above, they think my sources are 'reliable' and yet 'fringe' as though this isn't some kind of contradiction. The sources are reliable (one is one of the best selling Old Testament commentaries on amazon.com, while the other is one of the best selling New Testament commentaries on amazon.com) but they don't like the view of the author.

I have never been called conservative (let alone 'fringe conservative') as many times in my life as I have by these people. I am actually quite liberal in most ways, although skeptical that 200 years of ever-changing scholarship should be held in higher regard than the near-universal view for the prior 1800 years. Dylan keeps attacking me for being anti-Catholic because I removed some apocrypha that are considered Deuterocanon by Catholics. I restored the books to the list as soon as Dylan raised the objection, and yet he still seems to think I didn't restore them or that my restoration was no different from leaving them off. There is nothing I can do about any of it, because apparently they are justified and yet if I revert back, it is me who is edit warring. I am totally powerless so why bother.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe your unthinking deletion of the apocrypha was malicious, just that it was unthinking. It literally never occurred to you that maybe WP should reflect a canon more inclusive than your own. This seemingly willful blindness informs all of your edits, great and small. It clearly informs your comment about valuing 1800 years of tradition over 200 years of modern scholarship. You are editing these articles to fit your worldview, not what reliable, mainstream sources say, and this is a problem. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: At this point Dylan unilaterally added myself and User:Hardyplants to the RFC, though I have not seen Hardy take any part until he decided to do routine work on Gospel of John yesterday. JJB 03:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that you added yourself the moment you posted the biased and inaccurate summary of RomanHistorian's edit war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You really have no capacity for introspection do you. If everyone else defines reality different from you, it is you who is wrong.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this how you work towards a common understanding? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tried working towards an understanding with you. Every time I try you reflexively revert everything I do and your 'discussion' is limited to telling me how bigoted and biased I am. You simply revert everything without discussion which is SO frustrating. You know nothing other than hostility, and I can see I am not the only one you pick fights with. I will also report you as a sockpuppet if need be, as I sincerely doubt (as does EdJohnston) that someone on Wikipedia for a month could be so knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and so willing to get into so many fights. You do seem to have a real introspection problem. Given that so many editors and admins (now EdJohnston too) agree that you are the one misbehaving yourself, maybe you should get a clue.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war history

• RomanHistorian deleted a couple sentences and then cold-reverted three times within 7 hours, and was blocked 31 hours without discussion.
• PiCo mostly cold-reverted 16 times across 6 articles over time, and was first requested to stop editing the topic area voluntarily for a month conditional on RFC involvement or other conditions. When the RFC was opened, the request to stop was dropped, and PiCo immediately sought to change the agreed RFC into a form of third-opinion-seeking except that there were several editors involved and PiCo wanted to choose the third-opinion giver.
• Dylan Flaherty cold-reverted four times within 24 hours, and got only 2-week protection on one article.

This is problematic! One rationale given for the difference in results is that Dylan was not "the only one making large edits on that article". So consider a hypothetical. If I find an article with massive source verification failures (or otherwise requiring massive cleanup), and I set about with WP:BOLD changes and am faced by tag-teamed bold reverts that just barely skirt (and sometimes cross) the warring border, then I take it the tag team gets a pass because the entrenched article problems they defend are so tempting for massive correction? But OTOH if the article just needs touchup and a tag team alternates reverting small edits, an editor who thinks the first touchup is not a revert can get blocked immediately, without benefit of consideration whether "warring has stopped", "editor is responding to DR", or "we presume editor will respond to voluntary options but doesn't have to"? And the only difference is volatility? That leaves me with the message, "War boldly", because a pathetic little war will be seen as such and blocked, but a massive warrior obfuscates the situation too much to get blocked without an admin feeling guilty. Sorry for reporting the appearances of things. This unattended mediation page is becoming more a catharsis than an antidote. JJB 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

John, the request to me to desist from editing for a while related to a different article (History of ancient Israel and Judah); what we're talking about here is the article Authors of the Bible, and on that one I'm currently editing quite amicably with RomanHistorian. You're welcome to join us if you wish - but frankly I think you need to cool down a bit. Most problems can be solved if we avoid getting emotional and remember that the other guy is probably as human as we are. PiCo (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the mediation?

There doesn't appear to be a mediator here, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any discussion that could possibly lead to a resolution of conflicts. Is this how mediation is supposed to work or am I missing something? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how mediation is suppose to work. The page has been moved to a new and amicable concensus, and without the need for assistance from admins.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Close

I think this case can be closed. The dispute seems to have been resolved.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)